Economic burden of treatment failure in chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed healthcare costs of first-line treatment failure (TF) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), a subtype of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. METHODS: Pre-diagnosis treatment-naïve adults with ≥2 CLL diagnoses initiated on an antineoplastic agent (index date) after their first CLL diagnosis with ≥12 and ≥6 months of continuous observation pre- and post-index, respectively, were selected from the Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases. Patients had no solid malignancies in the pre-index period nor selected blood malignancies at any time. Initial therapy included antineoplastic agents initiated in the first 30 days post-index. TF occurred at the earliest of: initiation of a new antineoplastic agent, treatment resumption following a ≥3 month break, non-chemotherapy intervention (stem cell transplant or radiotherapy), hospice care or hospital mortality. The cost of TF was evaluated as the healthcare cost difference between patients with and without first-line TF using ordinary least square regressions adjusted for baseline characteristics. Non-parametric bootstrap was used to evaluate statistical significance. RESULTS: Among 2226 patients identified (mean age: 68 years; female: 41%), 46% experienced first-line TF. The average TF cost was $3011 per patient per month (p < .001). When stratifying patients by event indicating TF and by most common therapies, non-chemotherapy intervention ($7582 per patient per month; p < .0001) and fludarabine/cyclophosphamide/rituximab ($4758; p < .001) were associated with the highest TF cost, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of first-line TF is high and varies across first-line therapies. This should be considered when selecting the initial therapy in these patients.

Budgetary impact on a U.S. health plan adopting abiraterone acetate plus prednisone for the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate, an androgen biosynthesis inhibitor, received FDA approval in 2011 for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients who have received prior chemotherapy containing docetaxel. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the projected budgetary impact of adopting abiraterone for mCRPC patients from a U.S. health plan perspective. METHODS: A decision analytic model compared mCRPC treatment cost before and after abiraterone acetate adoption based on a hypothetical 1,000,000-member plan. Plan mCRPC prevalence was derived from prostate cancer incidence reported in U.S. epidemiology statistics and disease progression data from published trials. Market shares for comparator mCRPC treatments (prednisone alone; cabazitaxel + prednisone; mitoxantrone + prednisone; docetaxel retreatment + prednisone) were derived from market research simulation. Abiraterone + prednisone uptake (8% - scenario 1 to 55% - scenario 3) was based on assumptions for illustrative purposes. Treatment costs were computed using prescribing information, treatment duration from phase III trials, and drug costs considering common U.S. cost listing and reimbursement schemes. Prevalence and costs of managing treatment-related toxicities were estimated from literature, treatment guidelines, and expert clinical opinion. The model evaluated the perspectives of a commercial payer with no Medicare beneficiaries and a commercial payer with a subset of Medicare beneficiaries. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess changing input values. RESULTS: In each modeled scenario, 57 patients with prior docetaxel therapy received treatment for mCRPC. For the commercial perspective, the incremental per-member-per-month (PMPM) cost attributable to abiraterone ranged from $0.0019 in scenario 1 to $0.0133 in scenario 3. For the commercial/Medicare perspective, the incremental PMPM ranged from $0.0026 in scenario 1 to $0.0176 in scenario 3. The average incremental PMPM cost over 3 scenarios is $0.0112. When testing key sensitivity scenarios, the model indicated that abiraterone treatment duration and cabazitaxel market share were the main drivers of cost. CONCLUSIONS: The model results indicate that reimbursement for abiraterone may have a neutral impact on a U.S. health plan budget given the relatively small size of the eligible prostate cancer population and expected lower toxicity-related costs as compared with chemotherapy. The sensitivity analyses addressing the components of uncertainty in the model show that the budgetary impact of abiraterone is likely low.

Outcomes of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia.

PURPOSE: To assess the clinical and economic outcomes among patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA) treated with United States Food and Drug Administration-approved fixed dosing regimens of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA). METHODS: Data were employed from the Dosing and Outcomes Study of Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Therapies (DOSE) registry to evaluate CIA patients who were initiated on either epoetin alfa (EPO) 40,000 Units (U) or darbepoetin alfa (DARB) 500 micrograms (mcg) between January 1, 2006 and May 8, 2009. Study measurements included ESA treatment dose and dose ratio, changes in hemoglobin (Hb) levels from baseline, and cumulative ESA costs. RESULTS: Five hundred forty patients treated in 44 clinical centers were evaluated, of which 420 were initiated on EPO 40,000 U and 120 were initiated on DARB 500 mcg. Both cohorts had similar baseline characteristics, although EPO patients were less likely than DARB patients to have received iron supplementation before ESA initiation (11.4% EPO vs. 20.0% DARB, p = 0.015). The EPO-to-DARB dose ratio based on cumulative ESA dose was 169:1 (U EPO: mcg DARB). EPO patients showed statistically greater Hb improvement compared to DARB patients, and compared to EPO patients, a greater proportion of DARB patients required a blood transfusion (13.9% EPO vs. 22.5% DARB, p = 0.026). Mean cumulative ESA cost was significantly lower for EPO patients than DARB patients ($4,261 EPO vs. $8,643 DARB, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings reported that patients with CIA achieved more favorable clinical and economic outcomes if initiated with EPO 40,000 U vs. DARB 500 mcg.

Hematologic outcomes and blood utilization in cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA) pre- and post-national coverage determination (NCD): results from a multicenter chart review.

PURPOSE: In July 2007, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) limited coverage of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA) through a National Coverage Determination (NCD). The primary objective of this study was to compare transfusion rates in patients with CIA with lung, breast, or colorectal cancer before and after the NCD. METHODS: Adult Medicare patients with CIA treated at 49 community oncology clinics were selected from two time periods based on clinics' NCD implementation date. Chart data were abstracted for 12 weeks post-CIA episode start, defined as hemoglobin (Hb) level <11 g/dL while receiving chemotherapy or within 60 days of the last chemotherapy dose. Multivariate analyses were used to calculate the odds of transfusion and to assess the units of blood transfused, controlling for differences in demographics, clinical history, and chemotherapy. RESULTS: Eight hundred pre-NCD and 994 post-NCD patients from 49 sites were selected. Of the patients, 56% used ESAs post-NCD vs. 88% pre-NCD (p < 0.0001). The duration of ESA use decreased in the post-NCD (32.1 days) vs. pre-NCD (48.4 days, p < 0.0001) group. The post-NCD group reported significantly lower Hb levels, higher odds of receiving a transfusion (odds ratio: 1.41, 95% CI 1.05-1.89, p = 0.0238) and increased blood utilization of 53% (units transfused: OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.15-2.04, p = 0.0034). CONCLUSIONS: Decreased frequency and duration of ESA administration were reported in the post-NCD vs. pre-NCD period. Findings were accompanied by a modest but statistically significant increase in transfusions and a decrease in Hb values.

Drug utilization and cost for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in a long-term care resident population with chronic kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE: To compare drug-utilization patterns and costs in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), not on dialysis, yet receiving epoetin alfa (EPO) or darbepoetin alfa (DARB) in a long-term care setting. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of pharmacy dispensing from January 2007 through March 2009, was conducted using the AnalytiCareSM LTC database. SETTING: Long-term care. PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS: Patients>or=18 years of age, with >or=1 EPO or DARB dose dispensed, were included. Patients dispensed both agents, diagnosed with cancer, receiving chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or renal dialysis, were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean cumulative erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) dose was used to calculate drug cost (using April 2009 wholesale acquisition cost) and dose ratio (Units EPO:mcg DARB). Results were also stratified by payer types. RESULTS: A total of 2,259 patients were identified (EPO 1,640; DARB 619). EPO patients were slightly older (76.1 vs. 74.8 years of age, P=0.021), with similar proportion of women, compared with DARB patients. Mean (SD) cumulative dose was 98,420 (122,381) Units for EPO and 360 (428) mcg for DARB, resulting in a dose ratio of 273:1 (Units EPO:mcg DARB). The corresponding drug cost was 42% higher with DARB than with EPO ($1,734 vs. $1,217, P<0.001). Stratified analysis by payer types yielded similar results (dose ratios: 299:1 and 270:1 [Units EPO:mcg DARB]); cost premiums: 30% and 44% for Medicare Part A/Facility and Medicare Part D/Medicaid groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study of long-term care CKD patients receiving ESAs reported 42% higher drug cost with DARB compared with EPO and a dose ratio of 273:1.